Publication Records of Faculty Promoted to Professor: Evidence from the UK Accounting and Finance Academic Community

This study investigates the publication profiles of 140 accounting and finance faculty promoted to the senior rank of professor at UK and Irish universities during the period 1992 to 2007. On average, approximately 9 papers in Association of Business Schools (ABS) (2008)-listed journals, with 5 at the highest 3*/4* quality levels in a portfolio of 20 outputs are required for promotion to professor. Multivariate analysis provides evidence that publication requirements in terms of ABS ranked journal papers have increased over time, an effect attributed to the government research assessment exercise. There is no evidence that requirements differ for: internal versus external promotion, male versus female candidates; accounting versus finance professors, research intensity of institution peer group; or government research ranking of unit. There is also no evidence of a substitution effect in relation to increased recent publication history, quantity of non-ABS outputs or sole-authorship, all of which show a significant complementary effect. It is noted that there is very limited overlap in the UK and US publication journal sets, suggesting underlying geographically-based paradigm differences. The benchmarks provided in this study are informative in a range of decision settings: recruitment; those considering making an application for promotion to a chair and those involved in promotion panels; cross-disciplinary comparisons; and resource allocation. The evidence presented also contributes to the emerging policy debates concerning the aging demographic profile of accounting faculty, the management of academic labour and the Research Excellence Framework

Student carer experiences of higher education and support: a scoping review

Student carers are students who provide unpaid support to an individual who could not manage without their care. A scoping review was undertaken to determine the themes and concepts which underpin student carers’ experiences within higher education, examine student carers’ experiences of support and identify any gaps in the literature. A comprehensive literature search was conducted between February and May 2020. The search yielded 2,484 items, of which 14 articles were included in the review. Data from each article were extracted, charted and analysed using thematic analysis. The articles revealed that caring responsibilities could have a negative impact on student carers’ physical and mental health, university performance and financial status. Both formal and informal sources of support were referenced. Further, it was noted that universities had rigid rules and policies which did not suit the flexible needs of student carers. A paucity of research examined the impact studying had on student’s ability to provide care. Finally, issues relating to research design were observed, and a lack of demographic information or detail on the caring duties performed was found. A more robust evidence base is required to facilitate the development of interventions to support student carers in educationN/

What Is a Good Rank? The Effort and Performance Effects of Adding Performance Category Labels to Relative Performance Information*

Prior research demonstrates that relative performance information affects effort and performance. However, little is known about the qualitative design parameters of these information systems. This study examines, via an experiment, how adding performance category labels to ranks (e.g., “good” ranking position and “poor” ranking position) affects effort and performance. Furthermore, we investigate the effort and performance effects of two design choices observed in practice: the type of performance category labels and the proportion of positively labeled ranks. We argue that performance category labels motivate greater effort and performance through competition for status, which varies with both the type of performance category labels and the proportion of positively labeled ranks. We find partial support for our hypothesis that adding performance category labels increases effort and performance. Specifically, we find positive effects if top ranks are positively labeled and bottom ranks are negatively labeled (combined labels) but not if only top ranks are labeled (positive-only labels). We also find as predicted that the positive effects on effort resulting from using combined labels, instead of positive-only labels, are stronger when the proportion of positively labeled ranks is larger. The results for performance are weaker. Our results shed new light on the usefulness of performance category labels and emphasize how firms can render relative performance information more effective

Opportunistic CT for Prediction of Adverse Postoperative Events in Patients with Spinal Metastases

The purpose of this study was to assess the value of body composition measures obtained from opportunistic abdominal computed tomography (CT) in order to predict hospital length of stay (LOS), 30-day postoperative complications, and reoperations in patients undergoing surgery for spinal metastases. 196 patients underwent CT of the abdomen within three months of surgery for spinal metastases. Automated body composition segmentation and quantifications of the cross-sectional areas (CSA) of abdominal visceral and subcutaneous adipose tissue and abdominal skeletal muscle was performed. From this, 31% (61) of patients had postoperative complications within 30 days, and 16% (31) of patients underwent reoperation. Lower muscle CSA was associated with increased postoperative complications within 30 days (OR [95% CI] = 0.99 [0.98–0.99], p = 0.03). Through multivariate analysis, it was found that lower muscle CSA was also associated with an increased postoperative complication rate after controlling for the albumin, ASIA score, previous systemic therapy, and thoracic metastases (OR [95% CI] = 0.99 [0.98–0.99], p = 0.047). LOS and reoperations were not associated with any body composition measures. Low muscle mass may serve as a biomarker for the prediction of complications in patients with spinal metastases. The routine assessment of muscle mass on opportunistic CTs may help to predict outcomes in these patients

An Investigation of Auditors’ Judgments When Companies Release Earnings Before Audit Completion

The majority of U.S. public companies release annual earnings prior to the completion of audit fieldwork. We investigate this phenomenon in a controlled experiment with audit partners and senior managers. We find that releasing earnings before completion of the audit pressures auditors to adopt the goals of management, thereby reducing the likelihood of post‐announcement audit‐adjustment recommendations. We also examine the effect of audit committee (AC) strength in improving auditors’ judgments after annual earnings are released. When ACs are actively involved in accounting issues and proactively communicating with auditors—characteristics currently lacking in most ACs—the negative effects on auditors’ judgments are completely mitigated. Our study provides evidence on potential unintended consequences of early release of earnings and the importance of investing in high‐quality ACs to mitigate adverse effects of client pressures on audit judgment and financial reporting quality

Publication records of accounting and finance faculty promoted to professor: evidence from the UK

This study investigates publication profiles of 137 accounting and finance faculty promoted to professor at UK universities during 1992–2007. On average, nine papers in established academic journals, with 5 at the highest 3*/4* quality levels in a portfolio of 20 outputs are required for promotion. Based on various theoretical perspectives, multivariate models of key performance benchmarks (quality and quantity measures) are constructed and have good explanatory power (R 2 ≥ 0.7). Publication requirements seem to have increased over time, argued to be mainly attributable to government-initiated Research Assessment Exercises. For internal promotions, there is some evidence of higher hurdles but no evidence that quality requirements differ based on gender; sub-discipline; research intensity of institution peer group; or government-initiated research ranking of unit. Similarly, the quality benchmark is not reduced for those having an increased recent publication history, a high number of non-ABS outputs or sole-authored papers. Comparison with the US suggests underlying geographically-based paradigm differences. UK promotion benchmarks are argued to have evolved through a dynamic and complex interaction between university managers, the government and the accounting and finance academic community